Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:09 pm
Time: 8:09 pm
Results for private prisons (u.s.)
11 results foundAuthor: Camp, Scott D. Title: Evaluation of the Taft Demonstration Project: Performance of a Private-Sector Prison and the BOP Summary: In 1996, the United States Congress directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to operate the federal prison at Taft, California as a demonstration of prison privatization (see Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-208). This report describes selected measures of prison performance for the Taft Correctional Institution (TCI), operated by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, especially in comparison to three BOP prisons built upon the same architectural design at about the same time and holding similar types of inmates. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2005. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/orelappin2005.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/orelappin2005.pdf Shelf Number: 122438 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Nelson, Julianne Title: Competition in Corrections: Comparing Public and Private Sector Operations Summary: On July 21, 1997, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced that Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (now The GEO Group) had won the competition for a 10-year contract to manage a new federal correctional facility. Located in Taft, California, the new facility — known as Taft Correctional Institution (TCI) — had been designed and built by the federal government to house low-and minimum-security inmates. In 2005, the CNA Corporation (CNAC) was asked to participate in the task of evaluating the first five years of this contract. The following report compares the cost of the TCI contract with the cost of operating the facility “in-house” during this period. A separate report prepared by the BOP analyzes the quality of contractor performance at Taft. A report prepared by Abt Associates reviews both the cost and quality of the contract services at this institution. CNAC analysis indicates that the observed cost of the TCI contract was virtually identical to the estimated cost of in-house operation by government employees — based on practices observed at similar BOP facilities. Using a cost model based on Circular A-76 guidelines and information available at the beginning of the TCI contract, we found that our initial estimate of the expected in-house cost of operating the facility was lower than the expected cost of the management contract. Using this model with actual (rather than expected) wage rates, inflation rates, and inmate population levels, we found that: • Observed contract costs were generally higher than our initial estimates of what the BOP would have spent to operate TCI itself (i.e., the costs avoided through private sector management of the facility). • Observed contract per diem costs exceeded expected contract costs, largely due to award fee payments and reimbursements for wage increases mandated by Service Contract Act revisions. Using observed expenditures reported at TCI and three similar BOP facilities, we found that: • Observed per diem costs with contractor management were not substantially different from observed facility-level per diem costs at BOP comparison sites. • Observed per diem costs with contractor management were slightly lower than observed per diem avoidable costs at BOP facilities during the first two years of fullscale operations. • In the last two years of the period under review, observed per diem contract costs were similar to observed per diem avoidable costs at comparable federal facilities once allowances were made for changes in the mix of security levels in the inmate population. In short, the cost of routine contract operations was very similar at TCI and the three comparable government facilities. It was also generally higher than our initial estimates of what it would have cost the BOP to run TCI once it was fully activated. Details: Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation, 2005. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf Shelf Number: 122439 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCost-Benefit AnalysisPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration Summary: The imprisonment of human beings at record levels is both a moral failure and an economic one — especially at a time when more and more Americans are struggling to make ends meet and when state governments confront enormous fiscal crises. This report finds, however, that mass incarceration provides a gigantic windfall for one special interest group — the private prison industry — even as current incarceration levels harm the country as a whole. While the nation’s unprecedented rate of imprisonment deprives individuals of freedom, wrests loved ones from their families, and drains the resources of governments, communities, and taxpayers, the private prison industry reaps lucrative rewards. As the public good suffers from mass incarceration, private prison companies obtain more and more government dollars, and private prison executives at the leading companies rake in enormous compensation packages, in some cases totaling millions of dollars. Details: New York: ACLU, 2011. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2011 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf Shelf Number: 123238 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrisonersPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Hartney, Christopher Title: Prison Bed Profiteers: How Corporations Are Reshaping Criminal Justice in the U.S. Summary: Reported crime is at the lowest level in decades, safe alternatives to incarceration are an accepted part of the corrections system, and private prisons have not provided the cost savings and improved conditions of confinement that their proponents promise. Nevertheless, business is booming for prison companies. Since their start in the 1980s, private prisons have come to hold 8% of all U.S. state and federal prisoners, including half of federal immigration detainees. A steady flow of inmates has meant huge profits for these companies. Just as steady have been the reports of abuse and neglect, poor management of inmate needs, and poor governmental oversight. Low pay, limited staff training, and other cost-cutting measures—the primary ways private prisons sustain their profits—can lead to unmet inmate needs and security issues, heightening the inherent dangers to staff and inmates in secure settings. Private prison companies spend millions of dollars on lobbying, political campaign contributions, support for legislation favorable to their profits, shaping public opinion, and research likely to support their practices, which leads many to question the prison industry’s influence on criminal justice policymaking. There also are significant issues with the government’s ability to effectively monitor what goes on at private prisons. Proponents’ claims that private prisons can provide higher-quality and more cost-effective service provisions, improved conditions of confinement, and economic growth in the communities where new facilities are built are neither borne out in research, nor seen in the scores of private facility incident reports across the country. The expectation that competition for contracts among free market players would lead to generally improved efficiency, quality, and cost savings has not been met. Nevertheless, proponents continue to use these claims widely as a basis for pursuing privatization. This report describes the findings of conversations with several experts in corrections privatization, a review of the academic and legal literature on private prisons, and a media review of newspaper and radio stories on private prisons. It also includes recommendations for responding to the expansion of private prisons. Secure, locked facilities designed for adults are the major focus of this report, although many of the same issues and potential solutions apply to other types of privatization, in corrections and elsewhere. Federal immigration detention and contracted services, such as in-custody health care and programming or post-release supervision and services, are also briefly discussed. Details: Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime & Delinquency, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2012 at: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/prison-bed-profiteers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/prison-bed-profiteers.pdf Shelf Number: 125306 Keywords: Private Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Mason, Cody Title: Dollars and Detainees: The Growth of For-Profit Detention Summary: The War on Drugs and harsh sentencing laws led to explosive growth in state and federal prison populations in the 1980s. The massive rise in prisoners overwhelmed government budgets and resources, and created opportunities for private prison companies to flourish. In 2010, one in every 13 prisoners in the U.S. was held by for-profit companies, despite evidence that private prisons often provide inadequate levels of service and are no more cost-effective than publicly-run facilities. In addition, private prisons operate on a business model that emphasizes profits over the public good, and benefit from policies that maintain America’s high incarceration rate. Nonetheless, these companies could count on predictable growth in the number of state and federal prisoners until 2008, when budget crises and policy changes led some states to reduce their prison populations and private prison contracts. The resulting losses for private prison companies were more than offset by expansion of their management of federal detainees under the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Marshals Service. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of privately-held inmates decreased by 1,281, while the number of privately-held detainees increased by 3,327. This growth was part of a larger trend that saw the total private detainee population increase by 259 percent between 2002 and 2010; a change largely due to stepped up efforts to find, incarcerate, and deport people who violate immigration laws. There are indications that federal detention will remain a major market for private companies. There are two key concerns about the expansion of private federal detention that need to be addressed. First, many of the problems associated with private corrections appear equally valid in the area of private detention. These include unsubstantiated claims of cost savings, problems with oversight, and high staff turnover. Second, there are considerable concerns regarding transparency in the use of private detention. The way federal agencies report data on privately-held detainees, along with the complex contractual arrangements and tiered layers of bureaucracy that result from privatization, make it difficult to ascertain the full scope of detention privatization at any given time. Without such transparency, policymakers and citizens are inherently limited in their ability to assess the full effects of privatization. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Dollars_and_Detainees.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Dollars_and_Detainees.pdf Shelf Number: 125687 Keywords: Federal DetaineesFederal PrisonsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Hakim, Simon Title: Cost Analysis of Public and Contractor-Operated Prisons Summary: As states continue to grapple with aging correctional facilities, overcrowding, underfunded retiree obligations and other constraints, new research from Temple University’s Center for Competitive Government finds that privately operated prisons can substantially cut costs – from 12 percent to 58 percent in long-term savings – while performing at equal or better levels than government-run prisons. Temple economics Professors Simon Hakim and Erwin A. Blackstone analyzed government data from nine states that generally have higher numbers of privately held prisoners (Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas), and Maine, which does not contract its corrections services. The professors calculated both short- and long-run savings per state, finding that contracted prisons generate significant savings without sacrificing quality. "Contracts between private-prison operators and state governments can be very precise in terms of the outcomes the state expects," said Hakim, director of Temple’s Center for Competitive Government, which is affiliated with the Fox School of Business. "And contractors have an incentive to overshoot the performance metrics established by the state – lest they lose out to a higher-performing company on the next contract bid." The study uses economic models to determine each state’s avoidable costs, which are compared to the contracted per diem rates charged by the private operators. The study also takes into account underfunded pensions and retiree healthcare costs – a critical issue, with the Pew Center on the States reporting in 2010 of a $1.38 trillion gap between states’ assets and their pension and healthcare retiree obligations. Details: Philadelphia: Center for Competitive Government, Temple University, 2013. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://d3iovmfe1okdrz.cloudfront.net/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Cost-Analysis-of-Public-and-Contractor-Operated-Prisons-FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://d3iovmfe1okdrz.cloudfront.net/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Cost-Analysis-of-Public-and-Contractor-Operated-Prisons-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 128732 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Mason, Cody Title: Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America Summary: In 2010 private prisons held 128,195 individuals, representing eight percent of America's total prison population and an 80 percent increase compared to 1999. This growth has been fueled by claims that private prisons provide equal or superior services compared to publicly operated facilities, and at a lower cost. This report details the history of the movement to privatize prisons in America and documents the increase in their use. It also examines the purported ability of private prisons to provide the same level of services as publicly operated facilities, but at a lower cost, as well as the lobbying and contribution activities of private prisons on the state and federal level. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf Shelf Number: 128892 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: American Friends Service Committee Title: Treatment Industrial Complex: How For-Profit Prison Corporations are Undermining Efforts to Treat and Rehabilitate Prisoners for Corporate Gain Summary: "The Treatment Industrial Complex: How For-Profit Prison Corporations are Undermining Efforts to Treat and Rehabilitate Prisoners for Corporate Gain" highlights the expansion of the incarceration industry away from warehousing people and into areas that traditionally were focused on treatment and care of individuals involved in the criminal justice system - prison medical care, forensic mental hospitals, civil commitment centers, and 'community corrections' programs such as halfway houses and home arrest. These developments pose a tremendous threat of unintended consequences for states seeking to reform their criminal sentencing practices. The greatest financial gains for incarceration companies are in residential settings that allow a company to charge a "per diem" rate. If the stated goal is simply to reduce prison populations, there is real danger that the result will simply be "prisons by another name." Details: Philadelphia: AFSC, 2014. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/TIC_report_online.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/TIC_report_online.pdf Shelf Number: 134160 Keywords: Private Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: In the Public Interest Title: Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and "Low-Crime Taxes" Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations Summary: This report discusses the use of prison bed occupancy guarantee clauses in prison privatization contracts and explores how bed occupancy guarantees undermine criminal justice policy and democratic, accountable government." Sections cover: why quotas (aka occupancy guarantee provisions, bed guarantee clauses) are important to the for-profit private prison company business model; the prevalence of quotas in contracts; and the impact of prison quotas on Colorado by contracts with Corrections Corporation of America(CCA), on Arizona by GEO Group and by Management and Training Corporation (MTC) contracts, and on Ohio by CCA and CiviGenics (now a part of Community Education Centers) contracts; and recommendations for governments to reject bed guarantee clauses. An appendix provides information about privatized correctional facilities in the United States - facility name, contracted company, location, customer, contract expiration date, and whether an occupancy guarantee exists. Details: Washington, DC: In the Public Interest, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup%20Quota-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup%20Quota-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135070 Keywords: Private Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Carson, Bethany Title: Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota Summary: In 2009, in the midst of a multi-year decline in the undocumented immigrant population, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), then Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, inserted the following language regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) detention budget into the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010:"...funding made available under this heading shall maintain a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds." This directive established what would become a controversial policy interpreted by ICE as a mandate to contract for and fill 33,400 (increased in 2013 to 34,000) detention beds on a daily basis. The directive would come to be known as the "immigrant detention quota" or "bed mandate." The immigration detention quota is unprecedented; no other law enforcement agency operates under a detention quota mandated by Congress. Since its implementation, the quota has become a driver of an increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement strategy. The immigrant detention system has expanded significantly since the implementation of the quota, and the percent of the detained population held in private facilities has increased even more dramatically. Two major private prison corporations have emerged as the main corporate beneficiaries of immigrant detention policies: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. This report provides an in-depth assessment of the inception and implementation of the quota, with a specific focus on the role played by for-profit, private prison corporations. These companies have profited handsomely from the artificial stability provided by the quota while contributing millions of dollars in federal lobbying expenditures and in campaign contributions to ensure their interests are met. This report also features testimony from people directly impacted by detention and deportation, revealing the momentous human cost of the quota. Key Findings: 1.Private prison corporations have increased their share of the immigrant detention industry. Since just before the onset of the quota, the private prison industry has increased its share of immigrant detention beds by 13 percent. Sixty-two percent of all ICE immigration detention beds in the United States are now operated by for-profit prison corporations, up from 49 percent in 2009. Nine of the ten largest ICE detention centers are private. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the expansion of the entire ICE detention system by nearly 47 percent in the last decade. 2.Private prison corporations lobby on immigration and immigrant detention issues that affect their bottom line. Contrary to private prison corporation claims that they do not lobby on issues related to immigration policy, between 2008 and 2014, CCA spent $10,560,000 in quarters where they lobbied on issues related to immigrant detention and immigration reform. Of that amount, CCA spent $9,760,000, - 61 percent of total private prison lobbying expenditures - in quarters where they directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, which maintains the immigrant detention quota language and shapes the way in which it is interpreted. Lobbying disclosure forms reveal spending on: "Issues related to comprehensive immigration reform", and "FY 2014 and FY 2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations - provisions related to privately-operated ICE detention facilities". Since 2010, CCA has spent at least 75 percent of its lobbying expenditures in quarters where it has lobbied directly on the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee. Though GEO Group has not directly lobbied the DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, the company recently began lobbying on immigration and immigrant detention issues, spending $460,000 between 2011 and 2014 in quarters when they lobbied on these issues. 3.Two private prison corporations - CCA and GEO Group - dominate the immigration detention industry. Together, they operate eight of the ten largest immigrant detention centers. GEO and CCA combined operate 72 percent of the privately contracted ICE immigrant detention beds. In the years following the implementation of the immigrant detention quota, CCA and GEO expanded their share of the total ICE immigrant detention system from 37 percent in 2010 to 45 percent in 2014. GEO Group in particular has increased its share of the total ICE immigrant detention system to 25 percent in FY14 from 15 percent in FY10. Both companies have significantly augmented their profits since the implementation of the quota, CCA from $133,373,000 in 2007 to $195,022,000 in 2014. GEO experienced an even more dramatic profit increase from $41,845,000 in 2007 to $143,840,000 in 2014, a 244 percent increase. 4.CCA and GEO have recently expanded their immigrant detention capacity, including new contracts for detaining asylum-seeking families. Since FY2014, the most recent numbers released by ICE, both CCA and GEO have both expanded their capacity for detaining women and children in new family detention centers[22] in South Texas. The CCA-operated South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley opened in December 2014 and currently holds about 480 women and children. It is under expansion to grow to an expected capacity of 2,400 by May 2015. If this expansion proceeds, Dilley will be the largest immigrant detention center in the U.S. The GEO-run Karnes County Residential Center opened in June 2014 and now holds around 600 women and children, but will expand to a capacity of 1,200. Additionally, in January 2015, GEO acquired LCS Corrections, which owns several large immigrant detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana, further increasing its share of the immigrant detention business. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf Shelf Number: 135261 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Grassroots Leadership Title: The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, Summary: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's oldest and largest for-profit private prison corporation, is commemorating its 30th anniversary throughout 2013 with a series of birthday celebrations at its facilities around the country. Over the last 30 years, CCA has benefited from the dramatic rise in incarceration and detention in the United States. Since the company's founding in 1983, the incarcerated population has risen by more than 500 percent to more than 2.2 million people. Meanwhile, the number of people held in immigration detention centers has exploded from an average daily population of 131 people to over 32,000 people on any given day.[ CCA has made profits from, and at times contributed to, the expansion of tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant policies that have driven prison expansion. Now a multi-billion dollar corporation, CCA manages more than 65 correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The company's revenue in 2012 exceeded more than $1.7 billion. While the company has become a multibillion dollar corporation, it has also become exceedingly controversial, with a record of prisoner abuse, poor pay and benefits to employees, scandals, escapes, riots, and lawsuits marking its history. Faith denominations, civil rights groups, criminal justice reform organizations, and immigrant rights advocates have repeatedly argued that adding the profit motive to the prison and immigrant detention systems provides perverse incentives to keep incarceration rates high. To mark the company's milestone anniversary, Grassroots Leadership and the Public Safety and Justice Campaign have sought to highlight why there is nothing to celebrate about 30 years of for-profit incarceration. This report highlights just some of the shameful incidents that litter CCA's history. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2013. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Shelf Number: 135436 Keywords: Corrections Corporation of AmericaIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |